Okay kids, here’s the thing. Drawing is hard, drawing under a deadline is hard, drawing under a deadline when the paycheck really isn’t that great is hard. Add “I’m sorry I disappointed anyone, I’ll try harder next time,” to that last sentence, and that’s the index card I’d give to every artist who’s dealing with criticism from drawing a crappy thing.

As Nathan pointed out earlier, when you hire an erotic comic book artist to draw a mainstream comic book cover, you might be asking a lot to get that guy to tone it down. Definitely some of the blame for the Spider-Woman #1 variant should go to Marvel.

It seems to me that both in the United States and around the world, there are things much more important and serious to worry about. What’s happened in Ferguson, or Ebola’s dramatic rise, for example.

“Racism and incurable deadly disease is way more important than one crappy art” is hard logic to argue with, I guess.

Unless the point is that, in these days, a sort of hypersensitivity to erotic images is spreading, maybe due to the ongoing discussions we are facing related to Islam.

He just… did he just? So if we find artwork distasteful, we’re all radical Islamists?

As for how the drawing is “anatomically incorrect”:

It’s not my fault if women are like that. I just draws them. It’s not me that I’ve done so: the author – let’s just say – is a much more “important” one, for those who have faith.

“A wizard did it.”

On the other hand, for evolutionists (including me), women’s bodies have taken this form over the millennia in order to avoid the extinction, in fact.

“Women did it. To themselves.”

But if one goes on the internet to see all the other images of the character, there are many far more erotic

“DeviantArt did it. A lot.”

If you go on a beach now, you will see girls who have skimpy swimwear, which allows you to fully ‘read’ the shapes of their bodies. Of course, for someone it can be a disturbing image, but not for me.

“Women aren’t ashamed of their bodies, and neither am I, because I love the ladies. *finger guns*”

I do not consider that as one of the most erotic covers I’ve ever done. I think I have chosen, out of all the poses imaginable … one of the less problematic shots or viewpoints.

I think The Mary Sue had the proper response to this in their initial criticism of the cover:

The Mary Sue

That’s the erotic art Milo Manara has already drawn in his erotic comic book Click. So he took what he considers his least pornographic artwork and copied it over to Spider-Woman. And now he’s upset that people are upset about that? Somewhere along the way he’s taken all this negative press and somehow internalized it as: “People hate pretty ladies. I love pretty ladies! People are awful.”

The point, for me, isn’t that this post is anatomically improbable, because I don’t think it necessarily is. It isn’t that it’s a stripper pose, however unintentional because she’s climbing a frickin’ building and that requires flexibility, to be sure. If this were a photo you took of “Spider-Woman In Action” to put on the cover of your magazine, Spider-Woman would probably slap you.

Because of all the possible moments you could’ve captured her at work, you took the most unflattering moment. That moment where we’re turned in a weird angle or we’re making a weird face is not the moment we want immortalized on a cover. I’m not saying she has to be “posed” like it’s Cosmo. I’m saying there are far better “action shots” than “booty up, face down.”

Anyway, I learned something when Manara was talking about how the cover isn’t published yet, so Marvel could decide to pull it:

Marvel decides not to publish it so then it’s “goodnight to the bucket” (Italian expression that means “and then we’re screwed”).

@TedStevens It’s crappy art, dude. No matter how you slice it, the anatomy’s off (especially the face, as others have pointed out), the pose is ridiculous, and the clothing makes no sense whatsoever; either she’s got a plastic wedge jammed up in there with body paint over it. Bellyache all you want about progressives taking your whacking material away, the cover sucks. Full stop. Just for contrast, this is what Greg Land, the book’s interior artist and a guy accused of many of the same things, delivered for a cover.

Also, re: the whole “NOBODY FORCED YOU TO LOOK AT IT!” thing, that’s really not the point. The point is the attitudes reflected in basically putting porn on the cover of a comic book. It’s not good for anybody. It alienates new readers and reinforces old stereotypes, it makes people who just want to read the book cringe in embarrassment, it tells Marvel’s hardcore collectors “HERE YOU GO, YOU LONELY PERVERTS”, and in all, it was just a poor decision even before you get to the fact that, yes, objectifying people is a shitty thing to do.

Racist? If you’re referring to his Islam comment, you know that’s a religion and not a race right? Also, it’s a factual statement. Completely out of place and irrelevant to the cover, but factual none the less.

@Demosthenes [21stcenturyscholar.org] Pretty interesting read that sums up the issue, but essentially, the religion is tied inextricably in the minds of a lot of people (especially old Europeans) to the colonies they used to own. It’s kind of like how in the US, “illegal immigrant” has become shorthand on both sides of the aisle for “Mexican.”

I’m not defending the quality of the artwork, or the artist’s response to the controversy.

But It seems to me, that the “outrage” stems from the idiotic notion that men only see women in two distinct and never overlapping categories. Sex Objects or Human Beings. And that we lack the capacity to find women sexually appealing and to respect them at the same time.

There are literally thousands of depictions of strong capable women in pop culture. So how is a depiction of a strong capable women, (who is also sexually appealing) taking anything away from that?

And lets not forget that this cover is a variant. Which means it isn’t even the “official” cover of the issue.

It is the internet. Of course we will make a big-ass deal over a cover that will cost $20-25 and won’t even appear in the digital version of the book or mass-market stores outside of the trade. Hell, if I find the cover at my local store when the book comes out, I will take a picture of it to prove the price. Because a non-collector would not pay $20-25 for a 32-page floppy. And, in the end, that’s all that matters.

The regular cover, OTOH, is a mess of wrong because Greg Land went Greg Land on the cover. Hopefully, the interiors would be more like his variant to Edge Of Spider-Verse #2 and not the traditional Greg Land mess. Because, when he tries, he does good art.

@Carmelo @tetrisdork What it comes down to is that I’m sick of having to defend my hobby in the first place, and to be honest, shit like this never makes it easier. I have had to explain to educated open-minded people about comics at length because they think it’s all man-children jacking it to sleazy power fantasies. And then a publisher comes along with something like this.

Also, I’m really, really tired of being treated like a grunting ape. Even leaving aside the pretty serious issues this cover brings up, the reality is, this is what Marvel thinks their biggest fans want, Jessica Drew ready to take one in the pooper. Marvel doesn’t even have an excuse, it’s not like their biggest hits these days are heavy on the sex appeal.

@Dan Seitz This ain’t the Teen Titans cover controversy that rebooted CBR’s forums. It is a $20-25 variant used to bring in controversy because of the old saying, “controversy sells.” Yes, it is counter to what they have done recently with Ms. Marvel, Black Widow, and others during Marvel NOW!, but that’s the breaks. We move on.

Also, not everyone is in your situation. While I am the only person willing to bring comics to work, my friends and co-workers appear to at least be understanding and I don’t try to push my hobby down their throats. And I have yet to hear about the Spider-Woman cover from them.

Kelly Thompson, who I don’t read/care mostly about since the “Wonder Woman’s Amazons are ruined!” mind fart in 2012 (and the reason I am reading the current WW book), did a good job at breaking down this fiasco. She believes Land might be a bigger problem than Manara, and that if they released a look at the Skottie Young variant to go along with other 2 covers the shock might have been less. And a laugh at one of Land’s Uncanny X-Men covers during Kieron Gillen’s run.

@Carmelo there is a vast difference between a sexually appealing female form, and a sexually objectified image. this is the latter. If you honestly do not understand the difference, then i feel a great deal of pity for any woman in your life.

Going to write it again, because it makes me feel important: as a female, not at all offended by her pose- who cares? The point is, the “art” is BAD. It’s amateurish at best. I firmly believe that if the quality of the “art” were better, it would be less of an issue. It’s not the pose itself-its that it’s drawn and shaded poorly so it looks sleazy and cheap. Another artist could draw her in the exact same pose, and, done well, it would be provocative, sexy, and powerful- like the character is.